Haworth council may strip longevity pay from non-union workers

HAWORTH — Non-union employees who work for the municipal government objected to any ending of longevity pay for current workers — a move that officials have considered.

Elizabeth Rosenberg, the Haworth Library Director, read from a letter from the nine non-contractual employees at the Feb. 13 council meeting to address their concerns about having longevity pay removed.

Rosenberg said the letter was written for all nine members in attendance, including the library employees and those at borough hall, who are full-time, as opposed to her speaking for herself.

"When were first began working for the Borough, some of us more than 20 years ago, we were offered financial compensation which was in most cases below industry standards for the jobs we were to perform with the understanding that the benefits promised would make up the difference in our compensation," Rosenberg said. "As these benefits were codified in the borough’s ordinances, we had no reason not to believe that these parts of our total compensation would be taken away later, after many years of dedicated service."

At the last couple of council meetings, the council discussed the possibility of changing longevity pay with one option being to remove longevity for new hires, or freeze it going forward for existing employees without taking away anything accrued.

Mayor John Dean DeRienzo has said he is against taking away longevity pay from the existing employees. Councilwoman Mary Anne Groh said taking away longevity pay would not automatically mean no raises, but instead employees could be given merit bonuses or raises.

Councilman Andrew Rosenberg said question 47 on the 2013 Best Practices Checklist asks whether the town has eliminated longevity awards, and at present the council has to answer with a "no," which negatively impacts the borough’s score, which in turn affects how much state aid it receives.

"The issue at hand regarding longevity is that the Governor, in setting Best Practice Standards for counties and municipalities, has suggested phasing out longevity pay, and it appears, based on the comments made at the last council meeting, that there is a consensus to end any longevity pay for future hires, although having said that, no formal vote has taken place," Councilman Anthony Volpe said.

"Where there appears to be potentially more debate is the notion of freezing longevity paid to current employees," Volpe said. "Essentially that would mean whatever longevity pay was earned up until a predetermined date by existing employees would [be] kept and no further longevity pay could be earned."

Andrew Rosenberg said the borough would like to retain more control.

"The bottom line to me is the more control the council can wield over expenses and the less the borough is subject to automatic payments [or] increases, the better we will be able to keep taxes and expenditures in check," he said.

"The purpose behind longevity pay was to recognize the years of service and expertise that long-time employees bring to a municipality," Elizabeth Rosenberg said. "The positions in a municipality are specialized, requiring training, knowledge of state statutes, state certification, and continuing education, as well as experience on the job. Many municipalities offer longevity pay to their employees to recognize that a knowledgeable, stable, professional work force is good for the town."

"If the borough decides to change the employment benefits offered to new hires, even if that may have a corresponding effect on the quality of employees, they have every right to do so," she said. "However, to find that after years of loyal service, the Borough is contemplating taking away part of the compensation for only a small handful of predominately female employees, because we do not have the protection of a bargaining unit, is unequal treatment, and we hope that the council will reconsider such a measure."

Andrew Rosenberg said the issue primarily concerned borough employees and was not intended to single out women employees, a notion to which Groh agreed.

Groh responded to Elizabeth Rosenberg’s letter by saying she appreciated hearing what the non-union employees had to say first-hand. She added that it’s important to have robust discussion on the issue.